Of course not.
Thanks for the answers.
Well, now some do have the desire, as the link in the OP said. So maybe they’ll do it.
I thought of yet another analogous situation - clothing-optional (public) beaches.
Nobody cares if someone chooses to go to a clothing-optional beach. Everyone knows what they are getting into. You aren’t forced to disrobe, but you must tolerate those who choose to be naked.
But what if someone suggested making all beaches clothing-optional?
Would it be reasonable for someone to object? And if someone objected, would that mean they hate naked people?
Bathing suits are another relic of Victorian prudery, although I do need pockets. I believe we would all have much healthier attitudes towards sex and our bodies in general if we outgrew these ideas.
It would probably have to be a situation where they come to your home. Doing it DMV-style would be too much of a burden on the disabled.
It might be reasonable, and it might or might not be because they hate naked people, but I don’t think this is a useful analogy to the bathroom situation. I’m unaware of any medical/psychological professional consensus that presenting one’s-self as nude (or clothed) is or can be a core aspect of their personhood, as gender identity is (or can be).
That’s no fun – don’t you want to engage any more? I’m seriously curious what you’re suggesting here. Do you believe this potential problem (of people lying about their gender identity to gain bathroom access) is likely to occur more often than incredibly rarely? Do you believe that there’s a possible solution to this potential problem that doesn’t cause far more indignity and inconvenience to transgender people than the problem would to anyone?
What if we don’t waste our time in this thread playing your highly implausible “slippery-slope” scenarios and stick to the actual topic?
In post #20, you said
When I enter the toilet stall and shut the door, I’m usually the only one in there. Even if you are talking abut urinals, the only ones that that are going to sidle up next to you and possibly gasp in wonderment at your equipment are those that are able to use the urinal. Your back will be towards anyone else that is rushing to grab a private toilet stall, and unless you are in the habit of glancing over your shoulder as you let flow the wild river, it really shouldn’t bother you.
But aren’t bathrooms designed for sex, not gender? Otherwise don’t we need stand up urinals in the women’s bathrooms?
You ignored the actual questions again by simply substituting your personal opinions.
Should we make all beaches clothing-optional? Should the opinions of those who don’t like it not count? Do they hate naked people?
We don’t need stand up urinals in men’s rooms either – I’ve been to lots and lots of men’s rooms that only have toilet stalls, with no urinals. Segregated-gender bathrooms exist for sociological and cultural reasons, not for biological reasons.
Well, we certainly don’t need stand up urinals anywhere. They can be more convenient in some cases–I’m glad I have the equipment to easily use a trough at a soccer match–but they’re hardly a biological requirement of having a penis.
This.
I cannot remember the last time I saw someone’s genitals in a public restroom. Once in a great while in a locker room, sure, but it’s not like I’m A) searching them out or B) at any risk from them. If I happen to see someone’s junk, it does not cause me pain or trauma. Why should I care? If a guy in a locker room happens to have a big penis, a small penis, an unusually-shaped penis, or no penis at all, it’s not any of my business.
.
Maybe it’s not legally required everywhere (I wouldn’t know), but whenever I have seen a service animal it’s wearing some kind of special vest or tags identifying it as such*. And to answer the implied follow-up of how I’d know it was one if it wasn’t wearing that, I’m talking about when I’ve seen them in places that dogs wouldn’t otherwise be allowed. I’ve never seen a dog in a dogs-not-allowed area that wasn’t wearing some form of service animal ID.
*Often the tags say stuff like “Hi, I’m a service animal, so please don’t just come up and start petting me because it interferes with my ability to do my job. You fuckface.” (slightly paraphrased)
You seem to think that this is going to be really easy.
You think you can just walk in and demand that everyone not care about privacy the way they always have simply because you say they shouldn’t.
Life doesn’t work that way. Other people have other ideas about it. Go out and convince everyone out there that we should have unisex bathrooms and that it “really shouldn’t bother them.”
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
It’s not legally required. And a business owner can only ask if it is a service animal and what it is trained to do, and leave it that that. They can’t ask for any proof - no papers, no note, no placard. They must take the word of the person with the dog. See the link in the OP for details.
And those special tags, since they have no legal force, can be easily faked. Anyone can put one on a dog with no consequences. It’s not illegal to do so.
And apparently enough people are faking it that some states are considering laws to require them and regulate them.
Silly analogy. No one is suggesting all bathrooms or changing facilities be places where you will be required to see other people’s naked bodies.
(Yes, *public *beaches should all be clothing-optional. No, their opinions do no matter to me. Not hate, necessarily, but they are afraid of the naked human form for inane and irrational reasons.)
Sorry.
What I meant is thanks for answering my questions honestly. All I really wanted was for someone to admit that the things I bring up have no easy solution.
But that’s not the analogy.
The analogy is between two places in which people have certain preferences based on social norms and whether we have a right to dismiss those preferences or if we should respect them.
Back on topic, here is an article on transgendered service animals.
It’s not a slippery slope scenario at all. It’s an analogy.